Lexicus
Deity
How does the OP account for the case of the United States?
How does the OP account for the case of the United States?
Oh, I wasn't so much considering OP, but more replying to the post before me. Just brought up the US, which is a powerful state and empire, and just pointing out that it hasn't lasted particularly long for having had major ups and downs in its fortunes.How does the OP account for the case of the United States?
Forget about the desert island as a symbol of ego or Crusoe’s solitude as a terrifying test of sanity: in Robinson’s view, the book, written by a slave trader, was intended as both “a prospectus for potential investors” in the South Seas and a manual outlining the DIY skills that colonists would need to conquer the wilderness. In 1903, a schools inspector trumpeted the novel’s educational value by declaring that “nothing, not even football, will do more to maintain and extend the dominion of the Anglo-Saxon than the spirit of Robinson Crusoe”. Dominion back then was a synonym for colony; football, with its tribes of baying hooligans rallied by the likes of Tommy Robinson, can be fascism by other means.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/apr/21/good-morning-mr-crusoe-jack-robinson-review
So, what is it that the OP thinks the colonies should have done in the face of systemic political, social, and economic oppression? Live without the rights he takes for granted because, hey, Britain build some railroads?
How does the OP account for the case of the United States?
I'm not sure the OP has opinions he wishes to share. He posts threads as an exercise in "Just Asking Questions".
We have precious little knowledge of the political situation in post-Roman Britain until the early 7th century, so I'm not sure how you can speak so confidently on how 'Roman' post-Roman Britain was. While it seems urban life suffered more than on the mainland, I'm doubtful that can be attributed to Rome treating the whole of Roman controlled Britain as a 'frontier zone'. The little we know indicates that post-Roman Britain existed thoroughly within the framework of the Roman world and disappeared slowly due to pressure from Saxons, Picts, and Irish.A fallback from Germania and Dacia after what - two hundred years? When Rome left Britain, the Britons immediately emerged with little presence of Romanization left over, because the Romans treated Britain like a frontier zone than a core part of the Empire.
Rome never really 'left' Spain. The Visigoths slowly usurped Roman authority in Spain until it began to function more as an independent kingdom than a Roman province.When they left Spain, the Vascones rose up almost immediately. When they left North Africa, the Romano-Moors popped up.
Odd you would choose that period as a Byzantine 'Golden Age' as for easily half that period Byzantium was on the verge of collapse after losing Egypt, North Africa, the Levant, and good chunks of Anatolia and the Dodecanese to the Arabs; along with much of the Balkans and Greece to the Slavs, and Italy to the Lombards. The Empire spent much of that period wracked by civil wars, military reversals, and coups with the succession determined by bigger-army-diplomacy. Even the much vaunted Macedonian Dynasty really only hit its high point for a hundred years - and that is with their primary enemies collapsing in civil war and wracked by foreign invasions.The East suffered even more of a languishing death, though from 650 to 1000; they had a pretty good Golden Age.